One has to digest this alleged "proof".Have You?I tried to follow those guys who made Marathons to succeed this goal as they could not reach the " Sour Grapes".What some of them devised light-heartedly ,the inventionand use(God knows how-The King is Naked...)of the HALF PARTof EULERS Equation: e^(ipi)=-1but for JUSTICE to prevail since EULER'S Equationstates that: e^(iPi)=cos(pi)+i[sin(pi)]then e^(ipi)=-1 + i(0) , thus the other solution is e^(ipi)=0.

>>>There are volumes of pages on the>>subject which I have read - from Archimedes to SrinivasaRamanujan.>>And none of them proved it. So what?>>> Well! I have found out a solution. >>No, you haven't.>>>Could not believe it ? >>Belief is irrelevant. It's been proven impossible.>>>My logic is very simple.>>And wrong.>>>"Pi" is an irrational number. >>It's also transcendental.>>>So is square root of 2. >>But the square root of 2 is _not_ transcendental. Look up the difference.>>>There is a simple>>geometrical construction to solve for square root of 2. >>Nobody said that was impossible.>>>Similarly I have>>developed a simple geometrical construction to solve for "pi".>>If you constructed it, what you have is _not_ pi, because pi cannot be>constructed.>>> My question is Where to send it? >>The circular file.>>>Is there any Maths Forum where I can>>present my papers and answer questions of the experts? >>Sure, right here on sci.math. But instead of crowing about your proof, try>asking for>help in understanding why it's wrong.>>>>> May I request you to kindly guide me in this regard. >>Sorry, I wouldn't be able to find your fallacy even though I know it exists.>>>Thank you>>>>>-->Mensanator>Ace of Clubs